SynthesisTopics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation2024
How Can We Treat If We Do Not Measure: A Systematic Review of Neurogenic Bowel Objective Measures.
Synthesis in Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Guidelines fail to recommend objective measures to assist with treatment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) in spinal cord injury (SCI). Objectives: The main objective was to review the literature to identify the objective measures used in all NBD populations and to present their results and any correlations performed to validated subjective measures. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA (2020) guidelines, including all records from January 2012 to May 2023 with MeSH terms like "neurogenic bowel" indexed in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Abstracts were excluded if they did not include objective measures or if they only mentioned the esophagus, stomach, and/or small bowel. Records were screened independently by at least two collaborators, and differences were resolved by unanimous agreement. Results: There were 1290 records identified pertaining to NBD. After duplicates were removed, the remaining records were screened for a total of 49 records. Forty-one records (82%) included subjective measures. Two-thirds of the articles involved the population with SCI/disease ( Conclusion: There is an abundance of literature supporting the use of objective outcome measures for NBD in SCI. Strong correlations of subjective measures to objective outcome measures were generally lacking, supporting the need to use both measures to help with NBD management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.